Protect All Human Life




The heated debate about abortion is filled with emotional arguments that usually center on considerations such as sexual morality, religious beliefs, women’s rights, or purely on pragmatic reasons: if abortion were made illegal it would still take place – under unsanitary conditions that would endanger additional lives.

However, a rational evaluation of abortion must be built upon one single question: When exactly does human life begin? At conception, at birth or somewhere in between?

Not even the most radical feminist would find it okay to tear apart a recently-born baby just because it is not wanted by its mother. All other considerations aside, the only reason many individuals can support abortion with a good conscience is because they believe it’s not murder… and that unborn babies do not count as human beings.

Ron Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He believes that human life starts at conception, and that casual elimination of the unborn leads to a careless attitude towards all life.

Recalling his personal observation of a late-term abortion performed by one of his instructors during his medical residency, Ron Paul stated, “It was pretty dramatic for me to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket.”

In an Oct. 27, 1999 speech to Congress, Ron Paul said:

“I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.”

During a May 15, 2007, appearance on the Fox News talk show Hannity and Colmes, Ron Paul argued that his pro-life position was consistent with his libertarian values, asking, “If you can’t protect life then how can you protect liberty?” Additionally, Ron Paul said that since he believes libertarians support non-aggression, libertarians should oppose abortion because abortion is “an act of aggression” against a fetus.

At the GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate on Sep 17, 2007, Ron Paul was asked what he will do to restore legal protection to the unborn:

“As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there’s a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there’s an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it.”

At the GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida, on Nov 28, 2007, Ron Paul was asked what a woman would be charged with if abortion becomes illegal and she obtains an abortion anyway:

“The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don’t think that should be up to the president to decide.”

For many years, Ron Paul has been speaking up for babies’ rights. He passionately defends those who cannot speak for themselves because they haven’t been born yet.

In order to “offset the effects of Roe v. Wade”, Paul voted in favor of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He has described partial birth abortion as a “barbaric procedure”.

At the same time, Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion.

Many people feel very strongly about the issue of abortion, and once they make up their minds they rarely change their opinion. If you are undecided and/or open-minded, check out this page and this site for more information about abortion, including images and a description of medical procedures.



style="display:inline-block;width:728px;height:90px"
data-ad-client="ca-pub-3666212842414688"
data-ad-slot="9478233584">

Likes(5)Dislikes(1)

8,341 Comments:

  1. Dr. Paul please help your followers determine your position on abortion when it comes to federal land or in the military? What laws do you think the states should have? Should the constitution be amended to define life as beginning at the moment of conception or at implantation?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    • @darricksf

      That would be nice. Abortion appears to be the only issue that Ron Paul is somewhat ambiguous about. He seems for it but then when pressed about it, mutters about State Issues which simply sidesteps the question.

      If he is anti-choice, he should let us all know what he thinks of women. How women should not have the freedom to choose because they are ___________ ? Inept? Dimwitted? Dumb? Emotionally detached? Not deserving of such a freedom? I mean why should women not have the freedom to choose?

      Satirically speaking:

      Government should choose for them because the government is gender-neutral so it won't be a woman deciding and the government is really good at making life decisions for everyone and it will be totally fair. The government will determine if they can or cannot abort.

      - Financial hardship? Sorry you'll have to declare bankruptcy. Should have thought about that before getting raped. Ron Paul is not interested in welfare programs either so you should start seeking charitable donations right away. You have 9 months to get enough to live on and pay for all expenses. Good luck!

      - The fetus is found to have a heart defect and there is a 99% chance it will die before the age of 2? You should have thought of that possibility before having sex! You must get an abortion. Here is your appointment.

      - You were raped? Try suing (or marrying) the rapist for money.

      With all the ultrasounds needed to determine if the fetus is healthy and such, at least we'll have universal health care so she will get all the prenatal and postpartum assistance she needs! Oh wait... Ron Paul doesn't believe in any form of socialized medicine, not even for those who cannot afford health care. She will have to seek charitable donations. Good thing our charities are overflowing with donations from so many charitable people... oh wait, they aren't.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5

      • @DarrellRoss@darricksf Federal government should not get involved unless the constitution is amended to define life. Otherwise from what I have read and heard from Dr. Paul he is against abortion unless for the life of the mother and at no level should tax payers be forced to pay for any medical care. If we didn't have so much of our money going to the state directly through taxes individuals pay or indirectly through taxes on companies then we would have more money to support our family and friends directly. Give freedom a chance.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        • @darricksf

          Eliminating taxes would give me an extra few thousand dollars. It would make hardly any difference. Eliminating taxes of someone who makes a lot more than me will give them hundreds of thousands of dollars which also will make little difference. It's not as if they could not already afford to pay for any care they wanted if they are making that much money.

          Giving taxes back to the people is a gimmick. It does very little. I served on a college student senate. One term, there was a libertarian group that wanted us to refund all funding to every student. They argued that it would allow the students the choice of where to spend their money. Sure. All $15 of it. We had 3000 students so our budget was $45k. With that $45k, we were able to bring speakers from around the world to visit the school and benefit everyone. In addition, any student that had a good idea could request funding for their idea. If they did a good job, we would fund them. The $15 would have bought nearly nothing. Fortunately, the rest of us on the senate did not let that plan happen.

          The most recent payroll tax extension was silly. It saves me $10/week. I could have easily done without it. Those at the poverty line don't pay taxes anyway. Or they get them all back.

          I firmly believe we should have higher taxes and we should have universal health care. The reason our healthcare is so expensive is not because the government is involved but because insurance companies get away with too much.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      • @DarrellRoss@darricksf I posted exactly what Ron Paul said during the recent debate. Take a look at it and see if your view is similar to mine on it. I watched the debate and heard all of this. Reading it and giving it more thought....it appears to me that Ron Paul is actually saying that he believes that abortion IS about morality as opposed to a Constitutional issue. Or he has not been able to get it addressed at the Federal level as he had hoped? Is this a strategy he is taking to support a personal opinion?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • @darricksf

      “It’s a medical subject and I’m a doctor!” I do want to make a couple of comments because I can remember the very early years studying obstetrics and I was told — and it was before the age of abortion. And I was told taking care of a woman that’s pregnant, you have two patients. And I think that’s — that solves a lot of the problems of life — you know, when life begins and all.

      I also experienced a time later on in my training, in the 1960s when the culture was changing. The Vietnam War was going on. The drugs were there and pornography and everything came in. And abortion became prevalent, even though it was illegal. So the morality of the country changed, but then the law followed up. When the morality changed, it will — reflects on the laws.

      This is an indictment of government-run medicine because you never can sort that all out. You need the government out of that business or you will always argue over who’s paying what bills. I see abortion as a violent act. All other violence is handled by the states — murder, burglary, violence. That’s a state issue.

      So don’t try to say that I’m less pro-life because I want to be particular about the way we do it and allow the states the prerogative. This is the solution. This is the solution. Because if we would allow the states to write their laws, take away the jurisdiction by a majority vote in the Congress, you repeal Roe versus Wade overnight, instead of waiting year after year to change the court system."

      Ron Paul's words verbatim

      Pay attention to the last part for his desire to take this issue to the sate level.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      • @djt He is right, almost all of the states would/do outlaw abortion on demand. His position is the most constitutionally sound and would stand up. Gingrich and Romney would not get anything changed and Santorum would not get past the Supreme Court by dictating to the states through a federal law without actually addressing Roe v Wade and federal spending on healthcare in the states.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        • @darricksf He is right only in that he would achieve his means and PERSONAL belief. But, I would say that this violates my Constitutional rights.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

          • So you will allow someone to deny a potential citizen the same rights that you now enjoy. Selfish, and better in the eyes of a patriot that you should relinquish your liberties in defence of any future generations. Soldiers are commisioned by the majority of cowards in this disfunctional, so called, government to do just that. Many have paid the ultimate price for those freedoms even though we allowed the cowards to make them do that. No official decloration for war by Congress. You want to keep your liberties? Go fight someone that can fight back. Earn the right. You tend to disrespect the rights that you were GIVEN.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        • @darricksf It all brings us back to the Constitution one way or another.........this is beyond personal opinion because it is about a woman's body.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  2. @herrveller@BeckyHauser I aree with this, thus it would not be correct for this to be addressed by Congressional votes, Presidential signature or the permission of any state to rule over this. The only reason the attempt is being made to do this is that the pro-life movement has not been able to reverse Roe vs Wade. This is a Constitutional issue.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  3. Bush damaged the economy of your country and the world so badly and brought you into such disrepute that, although Obama is an improvement, he has not got a hope of repairing the damage done. Gingrich and Romney are a nightmare. I'm in Australia. I wish I was a US citizen so I could vote for Ron Paul. He is your only hope.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

    • Wish you were hear we need all the tax payers we can get. Just kidding. I think you are right about Ron Paul. He is doing well but the mainstreem news is causing him to swim upstream. I hate thair guts as thay withold the truth and advocate lies. These people have been allowed to be our eyes and ears on the world but are going to walk us rite off of a cliff. How do you fight them? Don't watch them? Start your own news program with all intentions of telling the truth? Got people doing that but thay can't get national air time because it takes millions for block time. People don't realise it but the FCC can shut down communication all over this country, And I mean ALL OVER this country just by hitting a button. It has been tested. This goes far beyond the emergency broadcast system. This includes cell phone and computers as well. What if mom wants to let her son or daughter know that Dad was arested on some charge for going on a march to protest the illegal wars in the Middle East, he can now be heald in detention indefinatly without council or trial under the NDAA. what if riots started? No comunication with the troops. Where do you think the troops are going to get the information from? Thay have been lied to and the best thing that thay could do now is to stand down until the truth is sorted out. Bring them home and if need be send them back with a decloration of war from congress with a clear understanding of what needs to be done. Still think you want to be here. Mabey we can change places. Hay, pet a Rooe for me. Gu-day.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. Typical Ron Paul. A lot of words saying and doing nothing. The only logical conclusion to the abortion question here is that he will do nothing to protect the unborn if elected. He will through the baby over the fence and let someone else take care of it. Doesn't want to get his hands dirty.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    • @FormerDem It seems to me that he would not sign any law that provided any funds for abortion. From his voting record he believes that Roe v Wade should be overturned and that a federal amendment to the constitution doing such would be called for. Otherwise I would like him to help define what the laws should be in the states, too.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. @BeckyHauser @herrveller What happens when women are being dragged into court and/or prosecuted because someone deems their behavior a threat to their unborn child? Is a person who can't survive without life support any less important than a fetus that can't survive outside a mothers womb? It's not like there aren't enough homeless, neglected, abandoned children out there, go save those kids instead of fighting for laws that will only add to the problem.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  6. @herrveller @Devils Advocate

    That's my point................. if we, that claim to be PRO-LIFE, truly do believe that life begins at conception, and is a womb to tomb issue we are being cowardly to kick this issue to the state level. That may stop the abortions from happening........ but it does not guarantee that will ultimately be the end result. The states do not have the right to supercede the Constistution....... and if LIFE is a right, then the State has no right to deny that right (to the unborn child) to live. I do not label myself as anything other than a conservative.......... and I worry that conservatives have lost the meaning of what that means. I believe that the Federal government is in our lives way too much......... but on this issue, I believe we are right to demand that Congress define to the courts what life really is...... A simple bill that defines that life begins at conception and that a fetus is a person would stop ALL abortions and guarantee every PERSON their rights. Look at how different the whole slavery issue would be if we had left THAT a state's rights issue.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

  7. CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for a common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    The very first sentence "and our Posterity" is named.

    Posterity, as defined in Websters dictionary; n. all following generations

    To fail to bestow the blessing of Liberty to another is to relinquish those same Liberties to oneself.

    A child forcefuly removed, that does not pose a threat to the life of the mother, from the womb is a direct act to deny that person it's Constitutional right to life and liberty.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

    • @Demsprtr

      You know, you can keep spouting falsehoods but, similar to stating that the almighty Zeus casts lightning bolts from the sky, repetition does not make it true.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      • Are you the person holding the bucket for falsehood to whom I must come to for definition of my input? There is nothing false about the intention of the Constitution. For people like you to twist and distort the simple logic in it's verbage is to fly in the face of those that had nothing but your continued quest for freedom in thair thoughts. It was not, I am quite certain, that our founders imagined that people would ever take it's meaning out of context. They did include a provision for change, but, in this case that provision was never considered. The court system took that illegal task upon themselves. This was against it's provision, as mentioned. An amendment was and still is what is needed. Roe Vs. Wade should not have been used to violate the wrights of this nations posterity. Use the law as it now exhists and abort yourself from this issue as you were allowed to exersize your rights until now only because you were given that chance to do so. People like you have denied many that same right. I would not do that to you but you would have done that to me. You can do that to yourself but, to use your own words, "that would be silly". Do it anyhow.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @Demsprtr

      Falsehood #1: posterity which is defined as "all following generations" implies fetuses.

      All following generations is not specific at all. It is completely open to interpretation. You prefer to interpret it to mean the enslavement women as baby-machines. I interpret it to mean following generations, once born because it is based on John Locke's Natural Rights and he argues once born. Even without Locke though, I interpret my next generation to be my kids, not a fetus. The fetus, while a potential kid, is not my kid yet. ~ Go ahead and respond here with some weird straw-man. Oh and don't forget to include something about how potential is equivalent to reality. Do you even know what potential means?

      "To fail to bestow the blessing of Liberty to another is to relinquish those same Liberties to oneself."

      I agree. And you want to revoke liberty to all pregnant women. You would make them slaves of the state. Once pregnant, they are a slave. One way to avoid slavery in that world would be to avoid getting pregnant. Pregnancy would mean loss of liberty. How fucked up is that?

      Falsehood #2: "A child forcefuly removed, that does not pose a threat to the life of the mother, from the womb is a direct act to deny that person it's Constitutional right to life and liberty."

      First off, I agree that once viable, the fetus should not be aborted except for extreme situations. So we are only disagreeing about unviable fetuses which are incapable of survive outside the womb.

      So we are not talking about "children" but about fetuses - potential children. This means they are not "persons" yet. You will need to redefine "person" to mean "egg+sperm" first. I refer you to a link I have seen on here twice now: http://publicsquare.net/a-libertarian-case-for-abortion-rights. Please read it.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      • Dear DarrellRoss; Falsehood #1? Say you?
        As you yourself are living in the future of your life, how is it that you can overlook the obvious, that you as the future generation of your parents could be having this conversation. If someone had chopped you up while still in the womb and removed the sum of your parts to be thrown into a dumpster would you be living in what is now your future as this nations future generation? You would have had no future if you were removed from that warm and comfortable part of your mothers body, weather the first, second, third trymester or as allowed in China post birth. Would it be safe to say, after that, that he or she was not a future of anyones generation? At a risk of bringing myself up to your level of inteligents; how is it that you can be so casual about the form "fetus"? Why is it that you treat this miricle as if it were a dirty little word, when it is in fact the continuation of a life. Many a research labritory have been trying to replicate that in a test tube and don't seem to invision at what point the act of abortion should occur. You can bet that if sucessfull the new born product will be raised for all to see yet the remains of the latest victim of abortion won't be raised alongside of it. Don't we have a test tube baby someplace in the world? Did we trade a natueraly conceved child for that one?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  8. @BeckyHauser

    I appreciate the irony........ but you get my point.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @BeckyHauser

      Perhaps I misunderstood your original post. When you stated " To make it a state's issue does not Constitutionally protect the sovereign rights of the unborn child." did you mean to imply that the unborn child had sovereign rights equal to yours and mine?

      If you did mean that, then I disagree. If it is unconstitutional for the States to do it, it is also unconstitutional for the federal government to do it.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  9. Okay........... On this issue, I have been giving a different point of view by another conservative......... If you are truly pro-life, then how can it be a state's rights issue? The Constitution speaks of LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To make it a state's issue does not Constitutionally protect the sovereign rights of the unborn child.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @BeckyHauser

      Sovereign rights? Please explain how you arrived at that.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @BeckyHauser You may be able to understand what I am about to say to you others on this site have ignored this fact. The people that fought and sacrificed so much and truly risked thair lives and the lives of family to get this new nation in a sovereign state were comissioned to give it laws that would be needed to protect all citizens from any act of tyranny far into the future. We know this ment to protect ourselves if need be. This protection names the unborn spacificly in the first sentence of the Constitution drafted by these great patriots, those same men that risked all to be free from a terrible government. The "POSTERITY" or future citizens are and were spoken for in that sentence and named in plain English.

      No one is trying to make a slave out of women. If we had given a lot more attention to what was required of us, many more of us would have a better understanding of what is required of us. Just read and comprehend what the statement is telling us. This is not a state or a federal issue. It is a Constitutinal issue, that can only be changed with an amendment to that document.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • @Demsprtr

        Look. You often enjoy attempting to rebrand "person" to cover not only existing people but potential people as well - unborn and unviable fetuses.

        And now you are trying to rebrand "posterity" to include potential people. Posterity is a reference to future generations of people. Not future generations of potential people.

        If your original axiom if flawed, you will get nowhere by using it to build upon.

        House upon the sand.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        • @DarrellRoss @Demsprtr
          We are going back and forth about "potential people". So the "natural" right to life means only real people, not "potential people" who are only "potential" because someone has the right to abort them. So the "potential" future of anyone could be aborted if someone else chose to shoot them in the head. Why do we care about this and why do we allow government to step in in this situation?

          We are talking about human beings! If you don't care about them, then why are you debating this issue? I have 3 children. Is it easy? No. Could I take a vacation if I didn't have them? Yes. Will I kill them to make my life easier? NO!

          Did I have an abortion 16 yrs ago? Yes. Biggest mistake I ever made. There was zero counseling & only people like you telling me what to do. I was 15 & impressionable & immature. May God forgive your agenda that has no value for life.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        • @Bkwmm @DarrellRoss @Demsprtr Anyone who has had an abortion and due to their own regret wants to prevent others from having one, is a hypercrite. Regret is a part of life, and forcing your new found belief on others is ignorant. I got pregnant at 15 and kept mine, so age isn't an excuse. I would personally never have an abortion, but, young girls who don't have a support system, rape victims, people who's pregnancies are a risk to their well being, etc., should have the option, as you did. Giving a fetus rights over the mother is a slippery slope, careful what you ask for.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

          • Rape victims are a low number in comparison to the number of healthy aborted children. Many of those are carried to term. Many are kept and many are adopted out. This has reduced the number of abortions. A pregnancy that threatens a mothers life that can deny the mother life risks elimination. That child to loving people in society or a family will not, in all likelyhood, cause the mother to enslaved as we have seen slaves treated in the past. If you fear slavery during pregnancy you can look foreward to emancipation after nine months, of which you will still be able to have your libertys in many other ways. That in itself is more then most other slaves were allowed. Sure you will be inconvenienced for a while, or until you put your feet in the air again, or you can also emancipate yourself by planning in eather case and in most cases adoptive parents will cover all medical expenses. My mother did not consider herself a slave and when she was older she was overflowing with the joy that our children brought to her home. In her later years she did not need to go through to the end of her life alone. I never saw myself, my brothers, or my only sister as the children of a slave. I truly don't beleve that she ever saw us as children that enslaved her. My wife and I have never felt inslaved by our children. My children do not feel enslaved by my sweet grandchildren and if thay did my wife and I would take all of them. That ain't gonna happen caus my kids don't feel like slaves.

            It's probably less like slavery and more like not needing to be responsible in todays society.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        • @Bkwmm

          There you go again with the straw men. We are *not* discussing murder of walking and talking individuals. We are discussing the fetus in the womb. A fetus is a potential human being in that if it is born, it will be a human being. Without being born, it is just a potential. Think of an acorn. An acorn is a potential oak tree but it is most definitely *not* an oak tree when it is just an acorn.

          "There was zero counseling & only people like you telling me what to do."

          There's some hypocrisy for you. I am not telling you what to do and I am fighting to keep people like you from telling my wife what to do. I am fighting to keep you from telling others what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. Is that what you really wanted then? You wish someone would have forced you to have the kid? By your own words, you were "impressionable and immature".

          Gods don't exist. They are the creation of man. This does not mean that I do not value life. But I value liberty where as you do not. You value life above liberty. What is life without liberty? Slavery.

          This is the curse of being adamantly pro-life. You are essentially fighting for government-enforced slavery of the woman.

          Mathematical models predict we will reach 50% non-religious in the USA by 2060. With the non-religious population growing and the number of pro-choice people being far higher among the non-religious, I am at least comforted that we will not take a step backwards and enslave 50% of our population.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

          • "We are *not* discussing murder of walking and talking individuals."

            So, your logic is that unless an individual can walk or talk, they can be murdered? What about the old, senile lady who can no longer remember her family or the crippled-up veteran who lost both legs in road side bombing while serving in Iraq. Or how about any other disease that create a less than "desirable" personhood. The denial of the personhood and life of a fetus in a mother's womb is a slippery slope to exterminate those individuals who seem to have no specific purpose.
            My question for you and all others who say life does not begin in the mothers womb is- when exactly does life begin?
            Life does not begin at the moment of birth- think of partial birth abortions. A baby's (5 to 8 month old Fetus) head is delivered and as soon as the neck is exposed, the doctor stabs the baby and kills it. Yes, that really happens. That same 5 to 8 month old baby may be born prematurely to a mother her wants her baby to live, she can request the doctors do everything in their power to keep that baby alive. Both baby's are at the same developmental stages, yet one is unwanted and thought to have no value or purpose, so no personhood, no life.
            The second baby was wanted, so all steps are taken to assure that life continues.
            Fetuses are in the first stage of life. They are not less human just because they are completely dependent. A lot of people are completely dependent (like the senile lady or crippled up vet)

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        • @DarrellRoss
          So are you equating the value of your wife to that of an oak tree? If a tornado hit, would you protect the oak or your wife?
          "Sandels argument begins to go awry with his choice of analogates. The acorn is analogous to the embryo and the oak tree (he says) is analogous to the “human being.” But in view of the developmental continuity that rightly concedes, surely the proper analogate of the oak tree is the mature human being, i.e., the adult. Of course, Sandel’s analogy has its force because we really do feel a sense of loss when a mature oak is felled. But while it is true that we do not feel the same sense of loss at the destruction of an acorn, it is also true that we do not feel the same sense of loss at the destruction of an oak sapling. (Indeed, our reaction to the destruction of a sapling is much more like our reaction to the destruction of an acorn than it is like our reaction to the destruction of a mature oak.) But clearly the oak tree does not differ in kind from the oak sapling. This shows that we value oak trees not because of the kind of entity they are, but rather because of their magnificence. Neither acorns nor saplings are magnificent, so we do not experience a sense of loss when they are destroyed.

          But the basis for our valuing human beings is profoundly different. We do not believe that especially magnificent human beings—such as Michael Jordan or Albert Einstein—are of greater inherent worth and dignity than human beings who are physically frail or mentally impaired. We would not tolerate the killing of a retarded child or a person suffering from, say, brain cancer in order to harvest transplantable organs to save Jordan or Einstein.

          And we do not tolerate the killing of infants, which on Sandel’s analogy would be analogous to the oak saplings at whose destruction we feel no particular sense of loss. Managers of oak forests freely kill saplings, just as they might destroy acorns, to ensure the health of the more mature trees. No one regrets this, or gives it a second thought. This is precisely because we do not value members of the oak species—as we value human beings—because of the kind of entity they are. If we did value oaks for the kind of entity they are, and not for their magnificence, then we would likely feel a sense of loss at the destruction of saplings, and it would be reasonable to feel a similar sense of loss at the destruction of acorns. Conversely, if we valued human beings in a way analogous to that in which we value oak trees, then we would have no reason to object to killing human infants or even mature human beings who were severely “defective.”"

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        • @DarrellRoss
          Please explain to me where the acorn came from. And where did humans come from? What is the origin of all life?
          You can actually reference the Bible for your argument on the ever-growing non-religious population. It's called end times. And, if you look at abortion stats, the majority of women obtains abortions identify with a religion that does not believe in it. Sad. So, although we Bible thumpers are debating atheists, we are battling on our own turf as well. Not because we are better, not because we don't love all who have fallen short of knowing the glory of God, but because while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. And, even on the cross, he cried out "forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do." There is nothing that compares to this kind of love, & once you know it, you spread it!

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        • @DarrellRoss
          And how can you equate a pro-life stance with that of slavery? Because we choose life rather than death? So a woman having choice sex & getting pregnant is slavery? 1% of abortions stem from rape & 6% are medically necessary. The majority are white & with good incomes. So their choice to get rid of the problem is life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness? Maybe you should do your homework & find out how many of those women became pro-life because the aftermath wasn't so liberating & happy. Maybe life still through curve balls & they figured out choices = consequences & they might need to actually face them one day. Maybe they learned that raising children isn't easy, but there is no greater gift. Maybe these women are the ones we should be listening to? They are not slaves, I assure you. Probably more do strong, independent successful women making a difference in a fallen world.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

          • Hay Bkwmm;
            I don't care how you are doing it cut, paste, plaster, stick or whatever. You will need all of that stuff to combat the fools that will pound upon you because thay themselves were not aborted.
            Can't imagin how many like these people were aborted as this one fell through the cracks.
            Oh dear, how many "like us" were taken.
            This may seem funny to you,but, "analogous" sent me runni'n to the Webster's. Not the sharpest Crayola in the box but my color is all over the place. For the most part I know right from wrong.
            Hope that tickeles your funny bone a little. I think you could use a hug.[EEEEMPFP]. There feel a little better. God love ya fer trye'n.
            Now that I know he is a he, he's BS'in you, he wouldnt't protect a Oak tree any more then he would fly off a one hundred foot cliff. He probably never gave a Oak tree a thought until you mentioned it. You drop ammo on the ground he's gonna pick it up and use it on you. He's fishi'n. He used a bad word on me earlier. Musta hit a nerve. Oh I have acoupl-a Silver Maples in my yard that make more babies then I can keep up with. I let as many grow to be saplings as I can and then I take them over to a vacant lot to replant. Do you think I am risking overpopulating with trees? Oh my!

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Bkwmm

          Yes Bkwmm, I would protect the oak tree! ROFL

          You really do need to study up on how to debate. I couldn't hurt. You have attempted arguments from authority constantly. You need to be able to defend your own argument. The acorn analogy I was using was from Judith Thompson's "A Defense of Abortion" (http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm). I am not familiar with Sandel. Does Sandel have a first name? If you wish to quote something, please provide a link to where you got it from so I can read it. Sandel takes the analogy WAY too far. I was comparing an acorn to an oak tree, not a sapling (which is also an oak tree). It was only meant to demonstrate the difference between a potential human being - a fetus - and a human being. The acorn is a potential oak tree. When you take an analogy beyond its intent and disprove it, this is called attacking a straw man. It is a logical fallacy and does not help you prove your point. It only paints you as resorting to hyperbole. Reductio ad absurdum.

          I applaud you for googling for rebuttals to arguments.

          But you need to read the argument, understand it, and then present it in your own words. Not just copy/paste the whole darn thing in. This specific rebuttal simply commits a straw-man fallacy.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

        • @Bkwmm

          "Please explain to me where the acorn came from. And where did humans come from?"

          Why? Why do you need to know? The acorn is quite easy. Trees flower, the flower is pollinated. Once pollinated, the flower forms a seed. The oak tree's seed is called an acorn.

          There are a few scientific theories (not be confused with plain theories) about the origin of life on this planet. Darwin's scientific theory (not to be confused with a non-scientific theory) of evolution describes how we evolved to our present state.

          What is sad is someone being convinced they are a sinner by a religion and then sold the cure for that - believe in the religion or burn in hell. There's no need to believe the story unless you are first convinced you are a sinner - in which case you need to believe the story to believe the sinner. It's circular reasoning - another fallacy.

          Please read about logical fallacies. Please be rigorous in your questioning of the history as presented by your bible. The bible is mostly wrong historically. It is full of genocide, murder, rape, and contradiction. It was written by men from the Bronze Age. There is no historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed at all.

          Again, religion, which is pure conjecture and completely unverifiable as having any basis in reality, has no place in our secular republic which is, as it happens, based in reality.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

        • @Devils Advocate
          I fully recognize this. I would not want any other religion forced onto me by government or anyone else. My point was, women of faith are getting abortions...those who have accepted, out of their own free will, Jesus Christ as their savior. At least atheist have no moral compass but their own inner sanctum. Or whatever you want to call it. I frankly do not understand why we have such mindless debates on a very basic issue. Life cannot happen without conception, it cannot continue if aborted, murdered, malnourished, etc. Abortion is no different than a pedophiles right to molest a 2 year old, it's no different than a man's right to beat his pregnant wife & cause a miscarriage, it's no different than my right to euthanize my disabled brother, who has been this way since birth because he is a road block to my natural rights. Shoot, if I get fired, why not kill my boss because they've disturbed my peace & prosperity! If the government doesn't step in & protect, who will? I have a right to live, when I was in the womb & now. Should I die from natural causes & not at another persons hands, there is no crime. If someone takes my life, there is. It's so simple. Religion or not. If you value life, you are not allowed to choose when to take someone else's. Period.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

        • @Bkwmm

          "And how can you equate a pro-life stance with that of slavery? "

          Listen to yourself. Maybe maybe maybe maybe. I do not base my arguments on "maybe's" but on fact. If a woman, once pregnant, is forced to carry to term, she is, factually, a slave to the government. She no longer has liberty over her own body.

          Maybe she will feel remorse about having an abortion. Maybe she won't. At least she wouldn't be a slave.

          The reason I wanted you to see the slavery argument is you seem so blind. Can you not see that this would eliminate liberty from women? Arguing with you is like talking to a brick wall. You offer arguments and I go google about them and read up on them (if I haven't heard them before).

          I offer arguments and you spout what-if's and theological myths. You offer hyperbole and straw-man analogies. You offer contradictions and wild generalizations. Come now, read my arguments with an open attempt to understand them. Try to know what it is to reject belief in the supernatural. Imagine a world (if you cannot understand the viewpoint) where nothing supernatural exists. Imagine a world with no gods. In such a world, where life thrives on its own without assistance from deities or magic, why would tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

        • @DarrellRoss
          Wow. For a moment there, I felt 15 again & being told how to think. I guess I spend more time barefoot & pregnant than reading up on "how to debate a close-minded man who uses a lot of big words & twisting of others points to prove squat & suit his argument, which really has no value because he is a blob of cells derived from apes who formed from spontaneous combustion of nothingness". Why are you here again? Oh yeah, the watered acorn. And where did the original Oak tree come from? Ya know, maybe you'll be reincarnated into a acorn & I'll plant you in my front yard. But, before you are fully grown, I may have to abort you & use the space for my new convertible.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @DarrellRoss
          Again, my parents are atheist. They think babies should be thrown out with the trash if unwanted too. Imagine how wanted I have felt! Lucky me. I was "the chosen one":) Listen, women's liberation has gone to a whole new level. Originally, it was pushing for real rights that would only benefit us & society. Now, it's hurting us. I don't have time to copy & paste the arguments (ha,ha), but look into it. And go into it with an open mind. We aren't weak little submissive minds coming up with this stuff. It's all around you. Good luck!

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Bkwmm

          Nice. Refuse to look things up. Refuse to actually understand the opposing viewpoint. When all else fails, simply claim victim status.

          Your questions suffer from infinite regress. I can demonstrate with you god Yaweh: Who created Yaweh? Who created the creator of Yaweh? Who created the creator of the creator of Yaweh? Etc.

          I don't believe in reincarnation. More supernatural stuff. I am skeptic.

          I do not know your parents but I am skeptical that they think the way you claim they do. After all, your interpretation of my viewpoint is flawed.

          Good luck.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

        • @Devils Advocate
          Why prohibit the natural free will of anyone? Why should anyone be penalized for acting on their free will?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        • @Devils Advocate
          Who decides which ones? So, abortion is purely a moral issue to be determined by the prenatal parent? I am the sole caregiver of my adult brother, & without me, I guess he could be placed in a home with state funds. To kill him would be illegal. Poor babies...they're at the mercy of their mothers. I guess I will continue to push for educating young women & volunteering at the care clinic so that maybe a few will hear the other side & possibly change their choice. The education does not happen at abortion clinics, sadly enough. I just don't understand how a women's right ( one that would not exist if she were aborted ) overrides the life inside of her. Maybe if the statistics were different I could understand, but women are choosing abortion mostly because it hinders their lifestyle or even the lifestyle of their parents.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    • @BeckyHauser Becky,

      Abortion is properly a states rights issue because violent crimes against citizens is prosecuted by the state courts. Before Roe V Wade most states did not allow abortion, now they all must allow it because it presently under federal juridiction. It that authority were returned to the states, as it should be, the pro-life movement would find a great open door of opportunity in stopping abortion in most states again. This will not happen under the federal government. 40 years has taught us that much. Limited federal government is the only real solution here.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • @herrveller @BeckyHauser It's not a violent crime, it's an optional surgery for oneself. Women are not machines, they can not be forced to be incubators. Education is the key to reducing unwanted pregnancies, a ban on abortion will only lead to less safe abortions.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  10. An "unfit" mother who is considering abortion for her child is very often under duress from a boyfriend or family member...this constitutes "coerced abortion." A baby in this situation is a prime candidate for adoption. Regardless of who feels most entitled to make the decision, the decision is this: should this child be killed while in utero? Even the mother herself should not have permission to end the life of her child...that's real simple. People should not be allowed to kill other people...even if the other people are in our houses, our cars, or our wombs.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    • @muppet

      *sigh*

      Do you even bother reading the arguments we provide? Please read this argument: http://publicsquare.net/a-libertarian-case-for-abortion-rights.

      Second paragraph:

      "Those who believe abortion to be morally wrong focus all their attention on the fetus. In their view, the rights of the woman and the consequences to her life are secondary to the alleged right of the fetus to life. Libertarians, however, believe in the sanctity of private property. There is no property that is more private than one’s own body."

      Fifth and sixth paragraphs:

      "Anti-abortionists rest the bulk of their moral case against abortion on the assertion that the fetus is a “person”; therefore killing it would be murder. If the fetus is not a person, their case against abortion fails. Anti-abortionists never define the word person in any intellectually precise sense. They employ the word as if it were synonymous with “human being” but fail to distinguish between genetically human and psychologically human. Marshaling evidence to prove that the fetus is biologically human, they think this proves that the fetus is a person. However, the term person does not have the same definition as “biological human being.”"

      TL;DR: Your argument is based on the flawed axiom that the fetus is a "person" identical to any human being.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      • @DarrellRoss It has been surmised that human beings use the power of scientific knowledge to assert and defend the values and goals they already have. Due to ever-advancing technology in diagnostic medicine and embryology, a substantial number of the most scientifically literate sector of the Libertarian party have subcategorized themselves as "Libertarians for Life." Ron Paul refuses to deny the humanity of the human fetus, as it was literally in his face every day for decades, as a board-certified obstetrician. Apparently, he is applying his knowledge to one of our basic ambitions as a nation to defend human life.

        True. The terms "person" and "biological human being" are not synonymous. Personhood must be acknowledged. A couple of hundred years ago, non-white humans in our country were categorized as non-citizens, and in many cases as the private property of white people. More recently, a European leader denied more than six million biological human beings their personhood by execution. Those African American and Jewish humans who had already been born could be seen, heard, and appreciated by even the more desirable, elite persons...the atrocities they endured were witnessed first-hand. Abolitionist sympathizers were commonly abused and ridiculed; however, they obviously succeeded in their efforts to secure human rights for their fellow man. They valued the sanctity of human life.

        Fortunately, many abortion-rights advocates have come a long way in recognizing the "marshalled evidence that proves the human fetus as biologically human," which is due in most part to the widespread application of medical technology (high-resolution doppler imagery--the thorn-in-the-flesh of the abortion industry). By the way, not all fetuses are persons...the canine fetus is distinctly a dog, the bovine fetus develops as per instruction by cattle genes, etc. Therefore, we most accurately assign the term "human being" to the human fetus, instead of merely attempting to use the word "as if it were synonymous."

        What constitutes a "psychological human?" More importantly, which persons(?) might be qualified to qualify them as such? Good grief..."psychological human"...some neuroscientists believe that freewill is an illusion...that not even the most intelligent humans are exempt from the unconscious determinates of "free"decision in the human brain...and as such, our actions, thoughts, and emotions are completely dictated by our changing environments...based upon that reasoning, NONE of us are "psychological humans." In fact, we are no more psychologically capable than a fly maggot feeding on frog feces. We can only hope that neuroscientists will not be deemed as authorities on human cognition, lest they be given jurisdiction in the event a government mandated psychological capability assessment program is instituted.

        Philosophers have observed that ethics and politics do not advance in line with the growth of knowledge. This is unfortunate, but we are confident that the worn-out, desperate arguments provided by abortion advocates will continue to be defeated by the absolute truths that are increasingly evident as exposed by ever-emerging scientific and medical discovery, coupled with inductive reasoning. We as a society will not be forever afflicted by legislation imposed upon us by elitists who exploit ignorance and base their rulings upon false premises...yes, that's right...false premises.

        BTW...sorry I made you sigh...I am very busy and don't have enough time to follow all of your comments. I spot-read and respond sporadically.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  11. As a practicing OBGYN I am sure that Dr. Paul has seen more then his fair share of horrifying incidences in his years of medical service. This may be why he has offered that you go to one or both sites shown in his article above. I have seen some of the same type photos but do not wish to see any more as what I did see was enough to" reinforce" the platform from which I stand. May I suggest that you spend some time on those sites so that you can, if possible, reinforce the platform and please remember that you are aiding and abeding a woman to choose her liberty over the life of a soft, warm, child that only needs a chance to live and be loved. If you have already seen video of these procedures and still advocate for them, then I can only pitty you for your inhuman heart. I can only be thankfull that I had no part in it but so sad that I can't provide more protection for those unwanted babies. It seems as though you are brite enough to find enough sites if challenge is your aim.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • @Demsprtr

      Pro-life biased sites offer the same tired arguments over and over. Arguments for which I have already found and learned solid rebuttals.

      I would ask that you re-examine your platform: you propose the government control all women. I propose to let the woman control her own body. Thus, to use your hyperbole, I am "aiding and abetting" anything she chooses to do up to and including any painful choices she may make.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  12. @DarrellRoss My description of abortion is the reality of abortion. It is wrong to kill a baby regardless of whether or not his mother wants him. Another reality...women are inconvenienced by pregnancy in ways that men aren't...and it's not fair. Some gay men are resentful of the fact that they are unable to become pregnant...such is the case with my husbands nephew and his partner...it's not fair, but it is life. It is also nature. It's not fair that my friend lost his eye when he was shot by someone he didn't know. Life doesn't always go the way we plan, but we deal with it the best we can. To carry a baby to term and then give him up for adoption is better for the mother, and obviously the child.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

    • @muppet@DarrellRoss This is a definite judgment call on your part. I have known people that have given their babies up for adoption that are happy and those that are tortured by it. Same for the adopted person. I've known people that feel lost, empty, thrown away and searching for their mother. I had a friend in high school that learned she was adopted and she finally realized why she felt as if she was in the wrong family her whole life. I have also had friends that have no interest in their birth parents and feel as if the people that adopted them are their true parents. It isn't possible to be inside another person's head or heart.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      • @djt@DarrellRoss That's the point. That's a judgement call that we have no business making...which children should live and which should be killed. As for your argument for the unhappy adoptee...the same dissatisfaction from those raised by their original birth families occurs all the time, but there aren't many people walking around wishing they had been crushed and dismembered when they were babies. There are tens of thousands of women (and men) speaking up about their regrets for making the decision to abort their babies. There is no way to prepare oneself for the emotional after-effects of abortion.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. Stump time for Dr. Paul from me; Ahmemmm, the news mainstream media has by no means been fair with Mr. Paul, in case you haven't noticed, in S.C. he was given only 98 seconds of responce time to answer questions. That was out of a one and one half hour debate. The whole thing is just a sham. What a stinking shame. I would not have known that if it wasn't for the internet and the internet is under attack with this SOPA proposed now in Congress. It ain't gonna be used for good stuff. You can bet on that. Same thing the gov. did with harmless R.C. airplanes. Turned e'm into spy planes that can kill stuff.

    Dr. Paul has an "AGENDA FOR AMERICA", one that just might be the last chance to save anything from a tyranny.

    Can you see that skinny figure, our old "UNCLE SAM" in his red white and blue suite. Now imagine him under attack. Can you see a fat banker with his hands on his throat, a whole team of corperate ceo's doing the same. How about a bunch of lobbyists and crooked politicians help'in choke him. How about the guy thay sent into the Middel East dressed like old unk. The guy over there now ain't us, folks. We better wake people up or it's going to be ugly. Don't trust mainstream media, something is wrong with them. Ron Paul 2012

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  14. I have been and always will be pro-life for 2 reasons and one that just has affected me recently. 1. I was adopted. My birth mother not only chose to go through the 9 months of the pregnancy that she didn't plan, but she also gave my adopted mother the chance to be a mom. My adoptive mother couldn't have kids. How unfair is it that people can just throw away a human life when there are SO many people in the world who can't have children and would love to be a parent. That ties in with my second reason. I haven't had the easiest time getting pregnant and it makes me sick that there are people who are willing to kill an innocent little baby when others would love to have taken that little child in and raised them and loved them. It's sick, just plain sick. Who knows what that child can grow up to become. What if that child was going to become a fireman or a police officer or a doctor who would be saving lives? We don't know the potential of some of these unborn children. Everyone deserves the chance to live. I'm so grateful that my birth mom was a responsible, decent, loving person and wanted to give me the best shot at life, even if it was the hard thing to do.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @hmcdaniel

      The what-if arguments are retarded. Let me show you why:

      - What if the fetus was going to become a mass-murderer?

      - What if they were going to become a suicide bomber?

      See? Dumb. It's like thanking a god for saving 1 person of 200 in a plane crash. ><

      The "I cannot have kids so I want to force others to have them for me" argument is equally doomed.

      - I am infertile. Genetically infertile. I am certainly not about to force a woman to have children for my benefit. Besides, there are PLENTY of children in need of homes.

      It is wonderful that you know your birth mom wanted you. Do you think a woman who is forced to carry to term would be equally nice to her fetus? Why not allow women who *want* to have kids carry them to term?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  15. Devil's Advocate

    Where are you going next? I feel like I could learn more just by reading your well-reasoned arguments. I am learning a lot but my writing is not so eloquent as yours.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. As I come to this site I can't help but wonder why so many pro-choice people spend so much time on it. The point of view of Dr.Paul is consistant, supposidly, with the ideals of the Republican party. He has stated his opinion quite clearly. Ya gotta give him that. The folks that don't see his point are using the site to debate any visitors to it. I for one can go to almost any other site for confrintation if I so desire. The site was intended to let folks know what, with no BULL, Dr. Pauls stance was on the issue of abortion as many pro-life and pro-choice voters have asked him to respond. And he has.

    This issue will take a back seat to the fight faceing this country today as we are at a serious risk of loosing our republic. Internet blackout, continued war, human rights are at risk, econimic colapse, the loss of liberty, the loss of our Republic. All at the hands of the statis quo; Obama and the other Republican candidates.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @Demsprtr

      I am not surprised that you cannot figure out why we are here.

      I cannot speak for the other but I am here to make sure it is not a whole bunch of nutty pro-lifers bemoaning abortion over and over. Ron Paul's pro-life stance may fit the religious right of the Republican base but it does not fit with independents nor Libertarians quite so well. In fact, his stance on abortion is really odd given that he claims so much Libertarian influence especially on all his "individual liberty" stuff.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • @DarrellRoss I for one would be quite satisfied if you would take your opinion to the Mitt Romney, or the Neut site to see if they offer the same insite on this issue as Dr. Paul. I'm going to see if thay even have a site on topic. Be right back.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Demsprtr@DarrellRoss I'm staying here because I am learning quite a bit about the opposing arguments as I was never involved in debating, nor expressing my personal opinions on this issue with others. It's been a real eye opener - I've appreciated those that are here explaining things about the Constitution and God. I am disappointed in myself for not having realized that this had become such a battleground and that our rights are at serious stake here. I am grateful I am not too late to miss out on making a difference on how this may play out. Those of you that are taking the time to educate others like myself.......THANK YOU........I am listening and your words, post sitings, etc. are being taken note of.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • I have tears in my eyes only because I can't convince you or offer a better solution to this problem so I defend in the only way that I can, I may use hateful words but my heart doesn't want me to do that. Many in battle have killed and I am certain that the heart didn't want the body to do that. I can only hope that Heaven just needed more angels, many more angels. If so we have sent many, no doubt.

          Some day my soul will leave this Earth and I will no longer trouble the pro-choice folks. Some of them will be happy about that. But untill then, onward. Thanks for the nice words. If you beleve in God then may He be with you. If you don't may He be with you anyway.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Demsprtr

          Ron Paul has principles and mostly sticks to them. Mitt and Neut simply pander to the loudest people in their circles. It is nice to actually discuss stuff on here. It is worth looking into but I bet that we would simply be shouted down on their sites.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • @DarrellRoss Hay i'm back! Nope didn't find nutt'in but flip floppin on Nitt-Witt-Mitt site. If it is there it is hiding real good. Doesn't matter it's flippin and floppin so much you coulden't nail it down anyhow. Shoulden't make a difference anyhoo for as a Republican he is supposed to be pro-life. At least Ron Paul is firm in his conviction. At least you know what to expect from Dr. Paul, as well as a fight for fixing a lot of what is corrupt in our government. Obama said he would make change O.K., from bad to worse. Ron Paul has been fighting for thirty years for change with no teeth. Lets give him a good set of teeth and let him rip. We can take up the abortion issue again after the dust settles.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • @DarrellRoss@Demsprtr Perhaps because he is an obstetrician who has delivered over 4,000 babies, he is aware that abortion is simply WRONG, no matter how many convincing scenarios we can fabricate.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • @Demsprtr I'm here because I have supported Ron Paul for years on everything he had to say but this issue. I knew he was pro-lie but did not know of his intention to support this issue in the political forum. Now, I am pretty upset about it. I don't know if I can support him anymore because of it, as it is so extreme. I feel deeply disappointed about it. I am deeply concerned about our nation.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • @djt Please don't sell your liberty for this cause at this time. We have some very serious issues to address at this time, that unfortunately will make this a non-issue if we do not keep our eye on the ball. If we allow this country to be sold to special intrest groups or of a tyranny this subject will not be an issue later. China forces abortion, and thay kill born infants that were wanted. Will losing our liberty be less important to you? Keep your eye on the ball. Your future and mine are at risk, as well as all in this country.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Demsprtr So many of you speak of the slippery slope theory. As far as I am concerned this could be taken the other way too.....all of the above scenarios are possible future ones for us if you do not see a woman's right in this issue NOW. We will hit a point of over population as well if this is overturned, we will see babies, children and mother's dying in the streets. Do you think you will be taking in homeless mothers personally? Will we be further burdened as a nation to care for these people financially? I would have trouble letting them all die from no food or shelter. We could have too many women getting pregnant unable to care for their children, an over abundance of kids in orphanages (as in other countries), no telling the ramifications of the attempt to force morality on others will heap on this nation in years to come. We could hit a point of the bizarre solution of forced tubal ligation and vasectomies if the government - federal or state own our bodies. Slippery slope again......make no mistake, you own a woman's body and soon a man's body will be owned too.I

          hear all you are saying and know the issues you are speaking of. I had no idea the extremist views and plans on this particular issue (which, I am embarrassed to say).

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • Since RoeVs. Wade this country has been inondated with all sort of promotion of deviant, immoral activity in movies and TV. I can remember saying to my wife years ago that I would not invite some of these people into my home. The moral being of my children was of great concern. I noticed a difference in my kids from peer pressure early in there education. I'v heard adults use language at thair wives and kids tha twould curl your ears. I have seen more disrespect for women then I had ever seen before, in my younger days. I can tell you that I would not stand for one of my son in laws to talk like that to my daughters or the kids. Even though you think it is his right to do so. Indifference to life or moral character is most discusting to me. People may be a lot more carefull if they were going to be accountable for thair actions. I liked the way we were as kids. I truly don't remember using, or my friends using, many of the descriptive words you here, far to often today, from very young kids today.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        • @Demsprtr

          Your argument that legalization of abortion has resulted in worse morals is silly. Correlation does not imply causation.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

          "With a decrease in the number of pirates, there has been an increase in global warming over the same period.Therefore, global warming is caused by a lack of pirates."

          You may wish to speak to people from your parents' generation. I am fairly certain you will hear the same sort of talk about your peers when you were kids.

          IMO, it is best to educate your kids well and teach them how to make their own decisions and judgments. Sheltering them only works until they are no longer sheltered by you and then they tend to go crazy. When I went away to college, the craziest party students were the ones who had lead the most sheltered existences prior to leaving home.

          If your kids suffered from peer pressure, then teach them how to cope with it. It's not like your generation lacked peer pressure. It's not like your generation lacked immoral people nor immoral behavior.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

        • djt & DarrelRoss Your crystal ball tells you that we would be overpopulated.

          Deny yourself of liberty if you want, just don't deny someone else before doing so. If pro-choicers would fall on thair swords you could make room for some that want to live.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        • @Demsprtr

          The irony of your statement made me chuckle.

          Deny myself of liberty? What liberty is that? I am fighting to PROTECT the liberty of women from people like you.

          Fall on our swords? How about you man-up and read a few articles, take a few punches, admit that statistics and facts prove you wrong at several places, and then come up with a rebuttal after studying the available ones.

          When you have finally taken the time to read the available literature and arguments, us pro-choice folks will be three steps ahead of you having read those arguments already and read the rebuttals to them.

          Quit acting as though your faith is an end to itself. Learn something for crying out loud!

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  17. I have a friend that is a solid voteing registered Republican and I am a registered Democrat [ if Ron Paul is nominated I will change that] and my friend has led me to believe that the Republican party is one of pro-life as I have yet to see his view materialize when the party had the power to make changes. I see it as a sellout for votes. I am a pro-life Democrat and have not changed affiliation as I fail to see Republicans as any different than a pro-choice party. With the exception, perhaps, of Dr. Ron Paul. His opinions are posted on this site for all to see, you will not likely see a flip-flop from him.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. I have watched the pro & con to this issue for many years now. I have been frustrated with piting my view, that I see as a moral issue foremost, so, I look to the Constitution for guidence in many issues and can only see where the document trys, among other things, to encourage honest and moral thinking, Intervention has proven to aliveate a great number of problems for a good number of people. Gee there is even a show on TV boasting about the help given from intervention. One point that I am trying to make, is, to incourage an act that risks a great deal of trauma to one life or another and to encourage that risk seems to be immoral in itself.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @Demsprtr From seeing your many posts, I am aware that you are a thoughtful person in your attempt to examine your own life and determine the whys in your belief system. You have spoken a great deal of your views and how you got there. I can definitely appreciate this in you. You hold greatly, value for the quality of your life and your loved ones. I like this about you and would even say I admire that you have a solid foundation for your life.

      I draw a line where you feel and state that it is somehow your duty to police the 'rest of us lost sheep types' from the brink of some supposed personal disaster. You see, you hold the key to your life and what is right for you but I hold my own key. My life belongs to me and I do not need rescuing. I have ended up at my belief system with as much introspection and life experience as you have. I don't take how I live my life in a selfish haphazard way, and I as well think a great deal of the future of our nation and our children. I see lots of things in our society that have IMO caused plenty of suffering. I am active in my support to bring solutions on a broader scale. I do it through education and awareness....not trying to capture and own others. I have NO interest in policing or forcing another to follow my belief system, but to encourage people to find this for themselves. I don't care really how this manifests as long as it is helpful in bringing about a less dysfunctional society where others respect one another and learn to live peacefully.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. http://www.littleredumbrella.com/2012/01/lets-be-clear-ron-paul-fucking-sucks.html

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. @PaulLashomb John Locke was not the only founding father. Every founding father had slightly different opinions and several of them never signed this particular document.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @PaulLashomb

      John Locke was not a founding father at all. He is the philosopher who provided the Natural Rights argument which the founding fathers relied upon.

      Devil's Advocate is correct. You can read Locke's "Second Treatise of Civil Government" here: http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.htm

      I believe he mentions the "once born" bit at the very beginning.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @DarrellRoss I'm aware of this. Let me clarify. John Locke influenced different founding fathers, but there were many founding fathers that signed the declaration of independence and not all agreed with his views. He made statements on how people are simply naturally given rights instead of given to people by their creator. Something that many of the founding fathers disagreed with. So it's impossible to say that "the founding fathers___" because they didn't always agree. Thus, there will be others that disagree with his Locke's views of when a child is given these rights.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @PaulLashomb

      You said:

      "So it's impossible to say that 'the founding fathers___' because they didn't always agree."

      This refutes your own statement earlier which read:

      "Clearly the founding fathers accepted government defense by saying that it is 'self-evident.'"

      You cannot have it both ways.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


five × = 40

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>